Today's vote on health benefits for gay and unmarried partners of city employees and others is going to be a squeaker. But if it's successful, Pastor Tom Brown is threatening to start a drive to recall Mayor John Cook and any city representative who supports it.

The vote, scheduled to take place sometime after 11 a.m., would effectively reverse a ballot initiative passed in November by a margin of 55 percent to 45 percent.

The initiative was intended by its authors just to end benefits for 19 unmarried partners of employees. But it also cost more than 100 others -- including members of the City Council -- benefits because of the way it was worded.

Brown said the mayor is now trying to override the will of the voters.

"We're doing it because the mayor is trying to overturn the democratic process," Brown said on Monday. "This is the first ordinance the people of El Paso have ever passed. If (what Cook is trying to do) works, it will be the end of direct democracy in El Paso."

Cook said he proposed the ordinance as a matter of principle, not because it's popular.

"I'm not going to change my position because of threats," the mayor said.

City Rep. Susie Byrd, who supports Cook's ordinance, was even more blunt.

"I don't think public policy should be shaped by bullies or bigots," she said.

Brown and others who have fought benefits for city employees' gay and unmarried partners have said they are not motivated by bigotry. They say the city is encouraging immoral behavior.

Advertisement

It's difficult to say which way today's vote will go, but it's sure to be tight. Cook predicted a 4-4 split with him breaking the tie.

Byrd and city Rep. Steve Ortega have said they will vote with the mayor.

City Reps. Eddie Holguin and Ann Morgan Lilly have said they'll vote against resurrecting benefits for domestic partners because they believe that's the will of the voters.

City Reps. Emma Acosta and Carl Robinson haven't returned calls on the issue, and City Rep. Rachel Quintana declined last week to say how she'll vote.

City Rep. Beto O'Rourke on Monday said that a ruling in May by U.S. District Judge Frank Montalvo prompted him to change his position on the issue.

As with Lilly and Holguin, O'Rourke had said he would vote to uphold the voter-supported ordinance even though he disagreed with it.

But in his ruling on a lawsuit over the ordinance, Montalvo hinted that if gay and unmarried partners of city employees were the only people stripped of health benefits, it might be unconstitutional.

"The court must examine carefully situations when the majority uses state power to punish or deprive a politically unpopular group of a benefit," Montalvo's ruling said.

O'Rourke interprets the ruling to mean that if benefits only were ended for domestic partners of city employees as some have proposed, and if another lawsuit is filed, Montalvo would strike down the ordinance.

"He gave us a preview of what his ruling would be," O'Rourke said, explaining his decision to support the mayor today.

To recall an elected city official, Brown must file notice with the city clerk's office and within 60 days collect a number of voters' signatures equal to at least 20 percent of the total number of voters who cast ballots in that official's most recent election. In Cook's case, that's about 6,000 signatures before a recall election can be held.

"Summer's not the best time to try to do a recall," Brown said, adding that he would likely wait until September to notify the city clerk of his intent to circulate a petition.

O'Rourke is leaving office later this month and won't be subject to a recall.

But the outgoing councilman said recalls are unlikely to be successful in any event. In 2006, people unhappy with a Downtown development ordinance circulated a petition against O'Rourke and even offered free hot dogs in exchange for signatures, he said. Even so, they were unable to gather enough names of District 8 voters.

Recall drives against Byrd and Ortega also have failed.

"It's a fairly hollow threat," O'Rourke said.

Brown said that if the mayor and city representatives vote for today's ordinance, they will be guilty of voting in their own interest and possibly violating the law. That's because they lost city health benefits because of the wording of last November's ballot initiative and a positive vote on Cook's ordinance would restore them.

"This would be a crime on their part," Brown said.

Ortega, a lawyer, said it is perfectly legal for elected officials to vote on their own compensation and benefits.

"I think Tom Brown has tried to be a lawyer before," Ortega said. "That's when he crafted the very confusing and unclear language that was on the ballot. He's the last person I'd take legal advice from."